Article: The Clarity Of Amorality

Discuss morality and ethics in this message board.
Featured Article: Philosophical Analysis of Abortion, The Right to Life, and Murder
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Article: The Clarity Of Amorality

Post by Steve3007 »

So everything involving a human action automatically has a moral dimension?

What about me solving the problem of which key to press in order for the letter "W" to appear on my screen? Surely it's possible to think of human actions with no moral content? Maybe not. Maybe the fact that at the route of all human actions is a human desire means that there is indeed a moral dimension.

I think though, we tend to think of morals as being particularly associated with our treatment of others. I wouldn't see my solution of the problem of how to get this wine out of this glass into my mouth as a moral one.
Rombomb
Posts: 1294
Joined: February 24th, 2013, 12:50 pm
Contact:

Re: Article: The Clarity Of Amorality

Post by Rombomb »

Steve3007 wrote:So everything involving a human action automatically has a moral dimension?

What about me solving the problem of which key to press in order for the letter "W" to appear on my screen? Surely it's possible to think of human actions with no moral content? Maybe not. Maybe the fact that at the route of all human actions is a human desire means that there is indeed a moral dimension.

I think though, we tend to think of morals as being particularly associated with our treatment of others. I wouldn't see my solution of the problem of how to get this wine out of this glass into my mouth as a moral one.
How to get what you want? That's morality.

Is it moral to get what you want while acting against the will of another person? No. (here i mean like initiating violence or threatening initiating violence on an innocent person)

Is it moral to get what you want by (voluntary) persuasion of other people? Yes.

Is it moral to suicide? There isn't enough details here to make an informed judgement.
We are all fallible -- anyone of us can be wrong about any one of our ideas. So shielding any one of my ideas from criticism means irrationally believing that I have the truth.
Belinda
Premium Member
Posts: 13782
Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
Location: UK

Re: Article: The Clarity Of Amorality

Post by Belinda »

Steve3007 wrote:So everything involving a human action automatically has a moral dimension?

What about me solving the problem of which key to press in order for the letter "W" to appear on my screen? Surely it's possible to think of human actions with no moral content? Maybe not. Maybe the fact that at the route of all human actions is a human desire means that there is indeed a moral dimension.

I think though, we tend to think of morals as being particularly associated with our treatment of others. I wouldn't see my solution of the problem of how to get this wine out of this glass into my mouth as a moral one.
While not all of us has the time or energy to moralise about how one ought to tip wine into one's mouth I don't doubt that there are treatises on exactly that topic, and other matters of hygiene, etiquette, or maintaining hand/eye/mouth coordinated movements. Morality enters into all fully conscious human actions i.e. actions which are filtered through our frontal cerebral lobes. True, tilting a cup of wine into mouth is probably a matter of 'muscle memory' for most people past babyhood but can again be deliberate if some muscular or nervous disease supervenes on the previous learned skill.

As I said, it is not usually possible to be fully conscious of all of our smaller actions, but as some religions insist, there exist petty moral rules and regulations that govern even eating and drinking.

If 'clarity of immorality' means anything to me it means that immoral acts are more conspicuous, more clear, than moral acts. I think that this state of affairs implies that moral acts are the norm and so they are inconspicuous.

Not to say that inconspicuous always implies moral. Sometimes the better or future morality is in course of invention and is heralded by eccentricity.
Socialist
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Article: The Clarity Of Amorality

Post by Steve3007 »

Hi Belinda.

Note: the article is titled: The Clarity of Amorality. Not Immorality. i.e. he's talking about the possibility of dispensing with the language and concepts of morality altogether, not about immoral acts.

But, yes, I see yours and Rombomb's points that we could define morality as broadly as: "Anything involving any kind of human action." I guess the OP simply disagrees with that definition. So we're down to semantic wrestling again!
Rombomb
Posts: 1294
Joined: February 24th, 2013, 12:50 pm
Contact:

Re: Article: The Clarity Of Amorality

Post by Rombomb »

Steve3007 wrote:Hi Belinda.

Note: the article is titled: The Clarity of Amorality. Not Immorality. i.e. he's talking about the possibility of dispensing with the language and concepts of morality altogether, not about immoral acts.

But, yes, I see yours and Rombomb's points that we could define morality as broadly as: "Anything involving any kind of human action." I guess the OP simply disagrees with that definition. So we're down to semantic wrestling again!
I disagree that semantics matter.

You and I can have the same idea, express it using different words, and we mean the same thing.

You and I can have different ideas, express them using the same words, and we mean different things.

Words don't matter. Ideas matter.
We are all fallible -- anyone of us can be wrong about any one of our ideas. So shielding any one of my ideas from criticism means irrationally believing that I have the truth.
User avatar
Theophane
Posts: 2349
Joined: May 25th, 2013, 9:03 am
Favorite Philosopher: C.S. Lewis
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re:

Post by Theophane »

faithlessgod wrote:I have posted summary of my concerns in The Unclarity of Amorality
Amorality is not at all unclear to the amoral person, ie. the sociopath. I can only imagine the clarity of being emotionally disconnected from all of mankind. I can only imagine how chaotic and meaningless our varying notions of good and evil, right and wrong must seem to this person.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Article: The Clarity Of Amorality

Post by Steve3007 »

Theopane:

In the OP, Scott appears to be advocating what he portrays as an amoral technique for dealing with the problems of human decisions. But he doesn't appear to be a sociopath (although I suppose it's impossible to tell for sure!). What do you make of that?

Rombomb:

I agree that ideas are important. But since those ideas are always expressed using words, I think that sorting out what we mean by those words is also important and sometimes turns out to be central. We came into this topic discussing what difference, if any, there might be between a "recommendation to a particular action" and a "declaration of what is morally right". I think that was as much a discussion about the meanings of words as it was about ideas.
Rombomb
Posts: 1294
Joined: February 24th, 2013, 12:50 pm
Contact:

Re: Article: The Clarity Of Amorality

Post by Rombomb »

Steve3007 wrote:Theopane:

In the OP, Scott appears to be advocating what he portrays as an amoral technique for dealing with the problems of human decisions. But he doesn't appear to be a sociopath (although I suppose it's impossible to tell for sure!). What do you make of that?

Rombomb:

I agree that ideas are important. But since those ideas are always expressed using words, I think that sorting out what we mean by those words is also important and sometimes turns out to be central. We came into this topic discussing what difference, if any, there might be between a "recommendation to a particular action" and a "declaration of what is morally right". I think that was as much a discussion about the meanings of words as it was about ideas.
I don't understand the difference between the two.

Are you saying that one of them claims infallibility while the other doesn't?

Are you saying that one of them claims to be an authoritative command and the other doesn't?

What's the difference between them?
We are all fallible -- anyone of us can be wrong about any one of our ideas. So shielding any one of my ideas from criticism means irrationally believing that I have the truth.
User avatar
Theophane
Posts: 2349
Joined: May 25th, 2013, 9:03 am
Favorite Philosopher: C.S. Lewis
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Article: The Clarity Of Amorality

Post by Theophane »

Theopane:

In the OP, Scott appears to be advocating what he portrays as an amoral technique for dealing with the problems of human decisions. But he doesn't appear to be a sociopath (although I suppose it's impossible to tell for sure!). What do you make of that?
It wasn't my intention to imply that Scott is a sociopath. I don't know him from Adam! :oops:
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Article: The Clarity Of Amorality

Post by Steve3007 »

Rombomb:

I was just trying to examine the meaning of the OP. Probably best just to re-read that.

Theopane:

I'm sure that wasn't your intention. I was simply trying to examine the apparent large difference between your and the OP's understanding of the word "amoral".
Belinda
Premium Member
Posts: 13782
Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
Location: UK

Re: Article: The Clarity Of Amorality

Post by Belinda »

Belinda wrote:
Steve3007 wrote:Hi Belinda.

Note: the article is titled: The Clarity of Amorality. Not Immorality. i.e. he's talking about the possibility of dispensing with the language and concepts of morality altogether, not about immoral acts.

But, yes, I see yours and Rombomb's points that we could define morality as broadly as: "Anything involving any kind of human action." I guess the OP simply disagrees with that definition. So we're down to semantic wrestling again!
Indeed yes, Steve. What people mean by 'morality' does matter when we are debating morality. I view morality anthropologically as a main part of how societies function, and therefore indispensable to any society.

I believe that if people want to evaluate several moral systems they should be using the term 'ethics' or 'ethical systems', or perhaps they should be comparing and contrasting moral cultures to evaluate them.

In any case, I seem to have misunderstood the OP and I'd better reread it.

(Edited)

I have reread the OP and I think that Scott is too hung up on what it signified that morality was couched in religion at one time. The global moral culture of the post-Christian civilised world now dominates the beliefs of all but the less educated, or poorer, or rural and undeveloped societies, or segments of bigger societies, that is true. Although religious myths and primitive cosmologies have lost their influences on the global morality, it must be cherished and nurtured because without it the global society will collapse.
Socialist
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Article: The Clarity Of Amorality

Post by Steve3007 »

I have reread the OP and I think that Scott is too hung up on what it signified that morality was couched in religion at one time.
I agree! I think he's putting the cart before the horse. I think religions probably developed as (among many other things) formal statements of pre-existing moral codes that were there because of the way we humans use social cohesion and cooperation as a very effective survival tool.
User avatar
Aristocles
Premium Member
Posts: 508
Joined: April 20th, 2015, 8:15 am

Re: Article: The Clarity Of Amorality

Post by Aristocles »

Perhaps the distinction between ethics/morality/norms etc. is as significant as cost-benefit analysis, risk-reduction or what Socrates calls the measuring art. Religion takes a philosophical concept and takes a stand, especially for those that may seem to need the guide. Morality is more than that, more than just because a religion may or may not say so.... Is it not based upon the very same principle that brings us to discuss the very topic? The simplicity and complexity are a lifetime's worth of fascination, as real as we can get with theses bodies holding us back.
User avatar
-prof
New Trial Member
Posts: 1
Joined: April 29th, 2015, 4:07 pm

Re: Article: The Clarity Of Amorality

Post by -prof »

Scott wrote:The Clarity Of Amorality
by Scott Hughes

Morality consists of moral values used to judge conduct, events, and people in general. It refers to the way people try to universally categorize human conduct as right or wrong, or good or bad.

... When a person says, "doing drugs is immoral," they might mean, "doing drugs will cause you more trouble than pleasure." When a person says, "breaking the law is morally bad," they might mean, "if you break the law, it will probably result in very unpleasant consequences for you."
Hi, Scott

Thanks for a thought-provoking essay. Your translations of what the sentences in your examples might mean suggest that you are offering a hedonist ethics ...with all those references to pleasure. And the word "consequences" does not convey clarity either. What are the boundaries of a "consequence"? Any way of measuring it?

You offer us a dictionary-style definition of 'morality.' It may reflect common current usage but it lacks rigor. I agree with you that it is very unclear. We need something better.

Though when I reflected upon the relation of self to Self, of our outer selves to our inner selves, of our conduct to our self-image, our values, the term "morality" seemed most-apt to allude to this relationship. I argue for it in my thread "What is Morality?" [...link to it was posted but was compelled to remove it....] [Scott: when I previewed this post, I was informed {by an automated message} that I am not authorized to post links. Evidently, that bot finds it to be subversive for me to post a link to another thread here at the Forum. Can something be done about this? I have about 436 posts here, but was forced to re-register because I changed my email address and reconfigured my computer due to a spam bot that was planted within it. Now I am rid of it.]

I believe we need to re-define the concept "morality" rather than dispose of it altogether. We need to redefine it to mean this correspondence - or lack of it - of our belief structure (including our highest values) to our actual behavior. It will then be a technical term in a model - a model that is part of a more-comprehensive ethical theory.

We need a new theory of Ethics and Morality; we need an Ethics for the 21st-century :!:

The Hartman/Katz paradigm is such an Ethics. For further details click on the signature at the end of posts by prof where you will find some suggested readings. See especially BASIC ETHICS. [It gets clearer after p. 9.] Also, see my latest thread on Ethical Clarity which I am about to post.

....Open for comments.
User avatar
Mgrinder
Premium Member
Posts: 904
Joined: February 1st, 2010, 1:24 am
Contact:

Re: Article: The Clarity Of Amorality

Post by Mgrinder »

Scott wrote:The Clarity Of Amorality
by Scott Hughes

Morality consists of moral values used to judge conduct, events, and people in general. It refers to the way people try to universally categorize human conduct as right or wrong, or good or bad.

Morality originated from religion. In the earlier days of human civilization, the lack of telecommunications and lack of fast transportation separated humankind into small, isolated communities. As a result the religion in each one of these communities would dominate the community. Since those isolated communities had little contact with other cultures and religious beliefs, they took their own religion as simple truth.
I don't think it's right to say that morality originated with religion Scott. For one, this suggests that early hunters and gatherers did not feel empathy or sympathy for others, help each other out, or do nice things for each other, until Shamans came around and started telling them to? That seems quite wrong.

Further, I was reading Jared Diamond's "The world until yesterday" which has a detailed section on hunter/gatherer religions, and basically, if you look at examples of these sorts of religions, there is nothing in them about how people should behave towards each other. They are world creation myths, and things like that, but hunter/gatherer religions do not prescribe behavior. This comes from anthropology data from new Guinea, Africa and South America, where hunter/gatherers were studied before they modernized.

Religion, it seems, only starts to prescribe correct behavior when city/states come into being. Then you get religions that tell people how to behave. The theory as to why this is, is that, for hunter gatherers, a stranger means danger. Strangers are viewed with great suspiscion and fear, and often killed on sight. You meet a stranger while picking roots, it's flight or fight time. You don't know what their intentions are.

So the thought is, that when cities grew big, you needed a way to keep strangers of the same city from killing each other, and the answer was religion. Make people in your civilization part of a collective whole, and they can get along without killing each other so much. That's Diamond's theory anyways, and I'm guessing that he doesn't think people consciously did this, rather religion evolved to accomadate early civilization.
Scott wrote: However, as the world has globalized, the different communities have come into more and more contact with each other and have begun mixing. With multiple religions in the same society, the society could no longer use a single religion as its law and value system. As a result, society developed secular laws and values that applied independent of any given person's religion.

Naturally, society derived its new secular values and codes of conduct from its religious values. For the most part, it just rephrased the religious commandments and values from the dominant religions in more secularized terms. The "sinful" became the "immoral."

Developments in science also have led to more secularization of society because science can more reliably explain what people would otherwise rely on religion to explain. Also, people questioned their own religion more once they came into contact with other religions.

However, the archaic idea of morality remains. Even many so-called atheists talk as though some metaphysically universal set of values exist to determine the goodness or badness of people or actions. They do that by referring to people and actions as morally good or bad.
Many Athiests, like most people, tend to care about the welfare of others. Just like hunter/gatherers did. When you care about others, then you don't want to see them hurt and you want to see others being happy. This makes you act morally towards them. Then your behavior might seem to conform to some set or rules. Really, you just want to see other people in good states, so for the most part, you don't kill them, don't hurt them, and try to help them when they need it.

This is a pretty big and important part of many people's lives, caring and acting in the interests of others. Many people can't help it, and they don't want to help it. So there's this word for all this : morality. It doesn't come from religion.
Post Reply

Return to “Ethics and Morality”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021